Next Supreme court pick

I really hope Bush takes this seriously and appoints someone like O'Conner. a moderate someone who will consider things on a case by case basis and not interject thier personal beliefs on public policy. But I think I'm being too oppitmistic. Honestly I'm scared of what's going to happen to my right to choose. I havea sinking feeling that the right to choose what I do with my body and reproductive health will be taken away from me and the thousands of women in this country.

What amazes me is just how anti-Gonzales the conservatives are! They are really attacking him, and he seemes pretty danged conservative to me. I know it has something to do with his record on abortion, but I'm not sure exactly what. Does he not support the criminalization of abortion?

That's the best news I've heard in ages (I hope its true)!

I'm a guy and I wish we could get an O'Connor clone appointed. I think she really helped th keep the Court from going off the deep end either way.

Rehnquist silences retirement speculation


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/14/re...lth/index.html

I liked Justice O'Connor. I hope Bush doesn't mess up this appointment.

Dang right it could be a lot worse

http://www.abc3340.com/news/stories/0705/243396.html

Cindy

Oh good lord! Heaven help us if THAT happens!

However, it won't. First, there is no way the Dems would let that nomination get through, and second, I'm sure there are enough GOPs who wouldn't let that one pass either. (They aren't ALL Right-Wing-Fundie-Nutjobs!)

I don't have a source for this because it was a story on the radio here, but they said that one of the rumored choices is a Colorado Supreme Court Justice, a woman, who although Republican has a very moderate record. Even Ken Salazar (D-CO) said that he would support her nomination because of her over 10 year record on the court. I really hope Bush is going to be realistic about this and nominate a moderate, because an extremist will never (and should never!) get through.

Agreed 100%. You could never really predict where she'd stand on a vote because she never voted completely liberally or completely conservatively. She gave her serious job the respect it deserved and you know she didn't vote to play politics, but rather because she took the LAW seriously. I admire her greatly and I hope ( ) that her replacement will earn that same respect as well.

AP just broke that Bush will make an announcement tonight at 9:00 EST. The name most thrown around today is Edith Brown Clement from the 5th Circuit based in New Orleans. They say she is a "moderate conservative in the mould of Sandra Day O'Connor".

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html

I guess we'll see, but if ABC is the only one reporting it (any news source for that matter!) I'll believe it when I see it. It may very well not be her, I just hope that he does choose a moderate to replace the outgoing moderate. And I'm sure he understands that anything other than a moderate has no chance of confirmation in this political climate. Also, Laura Bush has said that she would really like him to nominate another woman to replace O'Connor, and I think she holds a bit of sway.

Looks like ABC did get the scoop on that one. CNN is now reporting the same thing. That's too bad, she seemed like a good choice from the limited information I saw on her.

Seems this has really caught everyone by surprise because there really isn't much information about him out yet. I've just heard that he is a well respected Judge, and was a well respected lawyer, and that he has a soft touch in the courtroom as a Judge. Even the left-leaning panelists agree that he is not an extremist. But there seem to be more questions tonight than answers.

As I said to my friend earlier, should I jump off a bridge now, or AFTER I need an abortion?

I mean that in kind of hypothetical, catch-al way, but it's something to consider.

I feel that many of the far-right conservatives now are too stubborn and hypocritcal to do any good for our nation. Beliefs like being anti-abortion (I don't call being anti-abortion being pro-life, personally. Being pro-life would entail being anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-guns/weapons, vegan and an animal rights activist, which is a respectable position, though not my own) or anti gay marriage are fine to have, but not fine to impose on large populations. If you are Christian or whatever religion and your sacred text dictates that you should not have an abortion or not carry out homosexual realtionships, then by all means, follow your holy texts. I just don't think it's fair for people like that to expect the entire country to follow suit, when one of the best things about America is how diverse we are. You know yourself and your family and your beliefs community, but to try to tell someone completely different than you with completely different beliefs that they are wrong and you are right is completely unacceptable to me.

This is why I am worried about a more conservative judge being appointed. I, as a religious skeptic and a tree-hugging, vegetarian, anti-war, hairly legged liberal FEMINIST woman, am afraid that my personal belief system will be hijacked by the law. I think that there are a few things (like marriage and abortion) that I feel the governemnt has no hand in regulating. These are personal and religious decisions that people need to make based on their OWN backgrounds.

I am definitely going to have to agree with you on concentrating on our country's role in the world. We have a responsibility to respect other countries more than we have, and this includes being respectful of and educated about other cultures, and not being so bomb-happy.

As far as Roe being turned back to the states, I don't really see that workng very well. You could have a conservative govt in Louisiana not allow a woman to have the procedure done, but a doctor in New York or Chicago would be allowed to do it. It then makes the issue and issue of race and class, and prevents solving the problem where it is needed: amongst low-income women, particularly, single low-income women. Also, you then enter in the issue of parental consent and minors being transported across state lines for the procedure. It makes it a much larger mess than some people believe it to be now.

Marriage, I think, should be completely up to a person's religious instituion of choice. The state has no right to deny anyone the rights and legal protections or a civil union, period. I think that marriage, as a word, is a religious and spiritual institution that the states should have no part in. I believe that the country should concentrate on civil unions for everyone and let the churches and couples decided on marriage personally.

My boyfriend, who is moderate and not budging in the least, is telling me the same thing about it being ok and Roe not being overturned. And, I mean, it's not just Roe that I'm worried about. Griswold, Lawrence v TX, there are a whole lot of very narrow court decisions that might be jeopordized, as well as new ones to be made. Hopefully, though, both of you are right!

Wow, i got a little off-topic. Didn't mean to hijack the thread...Oops...

My husband has been doing some digging into Judge Roberts rulings while he has been a judge in the last 2 years. He tends to rule in favor of big businesses and against civil rights. He actually voted against a 12 year old girl that was arrested for eating french fries on a train. The police officer arrested her, handcuffed her, threw her in the back of a police car and threw her in jail for several hours. The girl sued the police for excessive force and Roberts dissented in the opinion (he said the officer was right). Pretty pathetic. He also votes against environmental issues and he is clearly in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade. In his words: "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled".

The quote about Roe v Wade was presented when he was a lawyer and representing the interests of his employers (I believe that was the Reagan administration). When asked during his confirmation (speaking for his own views, not those of a client) about Roe v Wade, that's when he made the statement that it has already been determined as the law of the land.